Traditional theists are, with few exceptions, global semantic realists about the interpretation of external world statement. Realism of this kind is treated by many as a shibboleth of traditional Christianity, a sine qua non of theological orthodoxy. Yet, this love affair between theists and semantic realism is a poor match. I suggest that everyone (theist or no) has compelling evidence drawn from everyday linguistic practice to reject a realist interpretation of most external world statements. But theists have further reason to (...) forswear this view, because those who insist on global semantic realism open themselves to the charge of hubris of a theologically inappropriate kind. If the arguments in this paper are sound, then neither God nor any of us have reason to apply a realist interpretation to all or even most statements about the external world. (shrink)

Failure to recognize the "realistic" motivations for Putnam's commitment to internal realism has led to a widely shared misunderstanding of Putnam's arguments against metaphysical realism. Realist critics of these arguments frequently offer rebuttals that fail to confront his arguments. Simply put, Putnam's arguments --the brains in a vat argument as well as the model-theoretic argument -- are "reductios" that are intended to show that "metaphysical realism itself is not sufficiently realistic". If that claim can be substantiated then Putnam can go (...) on to argue that his own view is, by comparison, more realistic than metaphysical realism. (shrink)

There is a dogma about metaphysical realism that is well nigh universal: "If one is a metaphysical realist about the external world, then one ought to be a semantic realist about external- world statements". I argue that this dogma should be rejected. It is possible for a metaphysical realist to be a "semantic dualist", holding that some middle- sized object statements receive a realist interpretation, but that most such statements require an antirealist interpretation. To show that a semantically dual language (...) is at least possible, I describe a possible world whose inhabitants speak a version of English that is syntactically dual. Further I argue that English in the "actual world" is itself semantically dual. (shrink)

The thesis of this dissertation is that "the realism-idealism debate" is both a theoretical and a practical dispute. The practical dimension has been largely ignored because the deficiencies in the theoretical positions have gone unnoticed. As theoretical doctrines, realism and idealism are best interpreted as semantic theories specifying the conditions in virtue of which our statements are true and false. As semantic doctrines, however, both realism and idealism are false. Neither semantic theory is consistent with other philosophical positions to which (...) most contemporary philosophers are committed. Once it is acknowledged that most of the participants to the realism-idealism debate are not actually committed to either semantic realism or semantic idealism, the doctrines of "practical realism" and "practical idealism" can be given the attention they deserve. ;In Chapter One it is argued that the only acceptable candidate for a theoretical construal of realism is "semantic realism" as applied to the class of statements that express our ontological commitments. Chapter Two defends this claim against contemporary physicalist realists who argue that realism is strictly an "ontological" doctrine. Chapter Three investigates two famous arguments that are generally thought to be the strongest justification for the truth of semantic realism. It is shown that whether or not they are sound, they do not actually argue to the conclusion that semantic realism is true. Chapter Four presents what I refer to as "particularist" refutations of semantic realism and semantic idealism. Neither semantic realism nor semantic idealism is consistent with our "considered convictions" about the meaning of our utterances and thus should be rejected. Finally, Chapter Five offers a preliminary account of "practical realism" and "practical idealism" and thus a new model for the interpretation of many types of realism-idealism discourse. (shrink)

This paper is concerned with connections between scientific and metaphysical realism. It is not difficult to show that scientific realism, as expounded by Psillos (1999) clearly qualifies as a kind of metaphysical realism in the sense of Putnam (1980). The statement of scientific realism therefore must not only deal with underdetermination and the dynamics of scientific theories but also answer the semantic challenges to metaphysical realism. As will be argued, the common core of these challenges is the proposition that a (...) (metaphysical) realist semantics leads to semantic agnosticism in the sense that we are unable to grasp the proper meanings and referents of our linguistic expressions. Having established this, I will focus more specifically on the question of whether scientific realism—in its state-of-the-art account—has the resources to make reference to scientific concepts intelligible such that the semantic challenges can be answered. (shrink)

This dissertation concerns Putnam's objections to the realist conception of truth and his alternative, "internal realist," conception. I evaluate two main kinds of argument that Putnam advances against the realist conception of truth. First, the realist conception requires that we are talking about a kind of world we could never, according to Putnam, be talking about, namely a world that exists in itself, independent of minds. He argues that our powers of representation could never establish the right kind of connection (...) to such a world. I argue that while Putnam's arguments against the "moderate" version of metaphysical realism are successful, his arguments against the more extreme, "rationalist" version of metaphysical realism are not. ;Second, the realist conception of truth requires that we are talking about a kind of world that we could, in yet another way, never be talking about, not now because of limitations on our powers of representation, but rather because the world that we do in fact talk about has the character of being conditioned by our interests in a way that is incompatible with it existing in itself, independent of mind. Since Putnam's arguments on this point are strongly verificationist, without an independent defense of verificationism, they are weak. But since verificationism cannot be easily dismissed, these arguments have some intuitive appeal. Thus, while they do not refute the realist conception of truth, they raise important doubts about it. ;The final part of the dissertation explores Putnam's alternative conception, appealing to "idealized rational acceptability," as a kind of correspondence theory of truth, according to which a belief is true just in case it corresponds to constructed, not mind-independent, reality. Making clear sense of how reality can be mind-dependent, but still real is a difficult problem. Putnam rejects rationalism for its "magical" assumptions. I have argued that Putnam is committed to the existence of a world which is real and external to our minds, yet still somehow dependent on minds. This too begins to look magical. (shrink)

Dummettian anti-realism repudiates the realist's notion of verification-transcendent truth. Perhaps the most crucial element in the Dummettian attack on realist truth is the critique of so-called realist semantics, which assigns verification-transcendent truth-conditions as the meanings of (some) sentences. The Dummettian critique charges that realist semantics cannot serve as an adequate theory of meaning for a natural language, and that, consequently, the realist conception of truth must be rejected as well. In arguing for this, Dummett and his followers have appealed to (...) a certain conception of linguistic knowledge. This paper examines closely the appeal to speakers' knowledge of linguistic meaning, its force and limitations. (shrink)

In order to shed light on the question of whether reliabilism entails or excludes certain kinds of truth theories, I examine two arguments that purport to establish that reliabilism cannot be combined with antirealist and epistemic theories of truth. I take antirealism about truth to be the denial of the recognition-transcendence of truth, and epistemic theories to be those that identify truth with some kind of positive epistemic status. According to one argument, reliabilism and antirealism are incompatible because the former (...) takes epistemic justification to be recognition-transcendent in a certain sense that conflicts with the latter's denial of the recognition-transcendence of truth. I show that, because the recognition-transcendence of reliabilist justification is significantly weaker than the recognition-transcendence required by a realist conception of truth, antirealist theories of truth that deny the strong transcendence of truth do not threaten the externalist character of reliabilism. According to the second argument, reliabilism cannot be combined with an epistemic truth theory because reliabilists analyze positive epistemic status in terms of truth but epistemic theorists analyze truth in terms of positive epistemic status. However, I argue that reliabilists who wish to adopt an epistemic theory of truth can avoid circularity by appealing to a multiplicity of positive epistemic statuses. (shrink)

Realism figures in current debates as the view that knowledge of the meanings of statements concerning a particular subject matter requires knowledge of their truth conditions, regarded as possibly transcending verification. Appealing to Wittgenstein's dictum that meaning is use, Michael Dummett has influentially argued that realistically-conceived truth conditions can play no role in an account of linguistic understanding. The present essay argues that, when such truth conditions are correctly understood, it will be seen that they are in fact indispensable to (...) any acceptable theory of meaning. The second part of the essay develops this conclusion with reference statements about other minds. (shrink)

A dominant concern of contemporary philosophy has been the debate between the realist and his critic, a debate that has been conducted both on a broad front in the philosophy of language, and in such local theatres as the philosophy of mathematics, the philosophy of science, and moral theory. The dissertation is mainly concerned to evaluate the influential general argument put forward by Michael Dummett against a particular conception of realism, the argument which prompted the modern version of the debate (...) and laid down the lines along which it has proceeded. Dummett argues that the kind of appeal to the notion of truth conditions made by the realist in devising his theory of meaning must be at odds with the thesis associated with the later writings of Wittgenstein that meaning is exhaustively determined by--hence cannot transcend--use. ;Having clarified the conception of realism as a theory of meaning on which the dissertation will focus, I turn in the second chapter to the theory which Dummett thinks should replace it. I argue that this theory, according to which the meaning of a statement is to be explained in terms of its justificatory conditions, is itself committed to making the kind of appeal to truth conditions which it deplores in the theory it is intended to supersede. On the basis of my discussion, I offer a response on behalf of the realist to Dummett's argument. In the course of elaborating and defending the response, I am able to give expression to a fuller and more defensible account of realism which takes its inspiration from John McDowell's work on the subject. ;The third chapter comprises an extended investigation of the possible role of the Wittgensteinian notion of criteria in the development of an anti-realist theory of meaning. The last two chapters are devoted to an examination of anti-realism with respect to statements about other times, other places, and other minds. I end by criticizing a sophisticated version of anti-realism proposed by Dummett's most prominent follower, Crispin Wright. I argue that it is only by incorporating the distinctive tenets of realism that Wright's account is able to forestall the kind of objection to anti-realism I raised against Dummett's version. (shrink)

The topic of this article is the cognitive and semantic status of Michael Dummett’s principle C. According to the principle, if a statement is true, there must be something in virtue of which it is true. The author suggests the interpretation of principle C in terms of the sufficient reason principle as a contemporary, weaker and semantic counterpart of the classical version of the principle. Considerations include such problems as: the distinction between the reason-consequence relationship and cause-effect relationship; the reductionism (...) and justificationism in the context of the realism-antirealism semantic controversy; the reversibility of reason-consequence relationship and the question of a search for ultimate reasons. The author also distinguishes three forms of the sufficient reason principle: metaphysical, ontological and propositional. (shrink)

In his presidential address to the APA, ‘‘How to be an Anti-realist’’ (1982, 64–66), Alvin Plantinga argues that the only sensible way to be an antirealist is to be a theist.1 Anti-realism (AR) in this context is the epistemic analysis of truth that says, (AR) necessarily, a statement is true if and only if it would be believed by an ideally [or sufficiently] rational agent/community in ideal [or sufficiently good] epistemic circumstances. Plantinga demonstrates, with modest modal resources, that AR entails (...) that necessarily, ideal epistemic circumstances obtain. It is a contingent matter whether ideal epistemic circumstances obtain for worldly agents and communities. Hence, the lesson, according to Plantinga, is that an anti-realist should be a theist. In the present paper we evaluate whether anti-realism entails that necessarily ideal epistemic circumstances obtain. A more careful analysis of Plantinga’s argument appears in section 1. We notice that Plantinga’s interpretation of anti-realism harbors an ambiguity of quantifier scope and that only on the less plausible placement of the quantifiers does AR obviously entail that necessarily ideal epistemic circumstances obtain. In section 2 we evaluate an alternative version of Plantinga’s argument developed by Michael Rea. Rea’s argument gets the quantifiers straight, but depends on logical resources that the anti-realist has independent reason to reject. After evaluating Rea’s argument we conclude that an anti-realist need not be a theist and is not committed to the necessary existence of.. (shrink)

The case for anti-realism in the theory of meaning, as presented by Dummen and Wright, 1 is only partly convincing. There is, I shall suggest, a crucial lacuna in the argument, that can only be filled by the later Wittgenstein's following-a-rule considerations. So it is the latter that provides the strongest argument for the rejection of semantic realism.By 'realism', throughout, I should be taken as referring to any conception of meaning that leaves open the possibility that a sentence may have (...) a determinate truth-value although we are incapable - either in practice or in principle - of discovering what truth-value it has ('the possibility of veritication-transcendence' for short). 2 I shall say nothing further about what an anti-realist semantics might look like, nor about the possible consequences for logic, epistemology and metaphysics, beyond the fact that it must involve the rejection of any such conception of meaning. (shrink)

According to what I term the Dependency Thesis, the ability to grasp the concept of the past depends on possession of episodic memory, i.e., the capacity to recollect particular past events. I consider two questions regarding the Dependency Thesis. First, suppose the Dependency Thesis is true. How exactly should we think of the role that episodic memory plays in grasp of the concept of the past? Secondly, is the Dependency Thesis actually true?

This paper explores the relation between epistemic conceptions of truth and different kinds of commitment to realism and antirealism. It argues that all epistemic conceptions of truth are versions of antirealism. Although epistemic conceptions of truth can make various concessions to realist intuition, these remain concessions only. One cannot concede all claims to antirealism and remain within the orbit of a genuinely epistemic conception of truth.

This is an introduction to Michael Dummett’s philosophy. Unlike other books on Dummett, this work considers the historical development of his philosophical thought: 1) Dummett in Oxford in the Fifties; 2) the discovery of Frege and the context principle; 3) a critique of realism in 1959; 4) theories of meaning; 5) truth-conditional, realist theories of meaning; 6) justificationist theories of meaning; 7) philosophy of time; 8) philosophy, science and religion; 9) Chronology of life and work; 10) History of the reception (...) of Dummett’s philosophy; 11) Bibliography. (shrink)

Can an epistemic conception of truth and an endorsement of the excluded middle (together with other principles of classical logic abandoned by the intuitionists) cohabit in a plausible philosophical view? In PART I I describe the general problem concerning the relation between the epistemic conception of truth and the principle of excluded middle. In PART II I give a historical overview of different attitudes regarding the problem. In PART III I sketch a possible holistic solution.

The issue of realism has been with us, in various forms, since at least the time of Plato. The dispute between realists and their opponents is currently attracting a considerable amount of attention in the philosophical community. However, there is often a lack of clarity in discussions of the dispute. This is due, in part, to the many ways in which the dispute and the positions involved are characterized. ;The dissertation seeks to understand the precise nature of the dispute between (...) those who support realism and those who oppose it, by an examination of several of the more prominent characterizations of realism which have been offered. These include those characterizations offered by W. T. Stace, Michael Dummett, Michael Devitt and Hilary Putnam. Particular emphasis is given the characterization of realism as a semantic thesis by Dummett, and the relationship of this characterization both to more traditional characterizations of realism, and to recent characterizations of realism as a general, scientific thesis. A way of seeing the relationships of the various characterizations to one another, and of seeing just what is in dispute between realists and their opponents, is offered. ;Another aim of the dissertation is to determine whether a solution to the dispute is possible. To this end, several recent arguments against realism, offered by Dummett and Putnam, are examined. These recent arguments have been thought by some to constitute a new challenge to realism. I argue that, while these arguments do point to problematic features of realism, none of them is conclusive. After I evaluate these most recent arguments, I assess the status of realist positions with regard to anti-realist positions. I argue that both realism and anti-realism face severe difficulties, for which solutions seem unlikely. The problems facing realism tend to force one toward anti-realism, and vice versa. One result of this is that both realists and anti-realists seem pushed toward a form of Kantian idealism. I consider the sort of solution which would be required to settle the issue between realists and anti-realists, and conclude that it is unlikely that there is a rational solution to the dispute. (shrink)

Autologos. A dialogue on fundamental logic. - In this dialogue of three dialogue partners, an attempt is made to prove the logical prerequisites of any meaningful dialogue by using transcendental arguments. Among these inescapable logical premises are a semantics as strong as that of modal logic S5, and an epistemic anti-realism.

Horwich argues that we should reject metaphysical realism, but that we can preserve semantic realism by adhering to a redundancy theory of truth and a confirmationist account of linguistic understanding. But the latter will give us semantic realism only if it allows that the truth-values of sentences may transcend our recognitional capacities, and this is possible only insofar as we covertly reintroduce metaphysical realism. In spite of its intuitive appeal, we should not endorse semantic realism, but this need not bear (...) upon the tenability of scientific realism. (shrink)

I argue that there is a distinction to be drawn between two kinds of mental realism, and I draw some lessons for the realism-antirealism debate. Although it is already at hand, the distinction has not yet been drawn clearly. The difference to be shown consists in what realism is about: it may be either about the interpretation of folk psychology, or the ontology of mental entities. I specify the commitment to the fact-stating character of the discourse as the central component (...) of realism about folk psychology, and from this I separate realism about mental entities as an ontological commitment towards them. I point out that the two views are mutually independent, which provides the possibility of considering folk psychology as not being in cognitive competition with scientific psychology. At the end I make a tentative suggestion as to how to interpret the former in order to avoid this conflict. (shrink)

We discuss the philosophical implications of formal results showing the con- sequences of adding the epsilon operator to intuitionistic predicate logic. These results are related to Diaconescu’s theorem, a result originating in topos theory that, translated to constructive set theory, says that the axiom of choice (an “existence principle”) implies the law of excluded middle (which purports to be a logical principle). As a logical choice principle, epsilon allows us to translate that result to a logical setting, where one can (...) get an analogue of Diaconescu’s result, but also can disentangle the roles of certain other assumptions that are hidden in mathematical presentations. It is our view that these results have not received the attention they deserve: logicians are unlikely to read a discussion because the results considered are “already well known,” while the results are simultaneously unknown to philosophers who do not specialize in what most philosophers will regard as esoteric logics. This is a problem, since these results have important implications for and promise signif i cant illumination of contem- porary debates in metaphysics. The point of this paper is to make the nature of the results clear in a way accessible to philosophers who do not specialize in logic, and in a way that makes clear their implications for contemporary philo- sophical discussions. To make the latter point, we will focus on Dummettian discussions of realism and anti-realism. Keywords: epsilon, axiom of choice, metaphysics, intuitionistic logic, Dummett, realism, antirealism. (shrink)

Realism concerning a given subject-matter is characterised as a semantic doctrine with metaphysical consequences, namely as the adoption, for the relevant class of statements, of a truth-conditional theory of meaning resting upon the classical two-valued semantics. it is argued that any departure from classical semantics may, though will not necessarily, be seen as in conflict with some variety of realism. a sharp distinction is drawn between the rejection of realism and the acceptance of a reductionist thesis; though intimately related, neither (...) entails the other. realism is to be classified as "naive", "semi-naive" or "sophisticated": the first of these involves an all but unintelligible epistemological component. (shrink)